I had been planning to post on this topic and was delighted to find the first article just now.
I have been wondering how in the world we are going to reduce the debt when both sides just want to increase it... The Liberals of course want to GROW government and spending, somehow thinking that the "Rich" should and can afford it. And the Conservatives want to SHRINK government and keep all their money in their pockets. (ie thinking that they deserve it all and that our society had little to do with their "personal" success)
So what is a politician to do in order to gain popularity?
The upside I guess is that ours is a self correcting system. If the majority are doing well, they will likely support smaller government and less wealth transfer. (ie keep their own money) However if the majority are doing poorly and have little money to keep, they will likely vote for bigger government and more wealth transfer. (get "that guys" money)
And this only addresses the Left/Right issues. (G2A L or R) There are a whole lot more popularity points available in the Up/Down direction.
So are we citizens capable of behaving like responsible adults or will we continue to vote whatever is good for our personal wallet in the short term?
CNN: Is Democracy in Crisis?
Foreign Affairs The Present Crisis in Democracy
CNN: Who's the Problem: People or Politicians?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
The first thing you have to do is define or at least get some understanding of what "popular" is or means. Is it the same thing as being a successful candidate at the polls? I think there are many more winning candidates that popular candidates. Amy Klobuchar is popular, Mark Dayton is not. Mitt Romney isn't popular but he is running very well. Is Ron Paul popular? Is popular the same thing as being loved?
--Hiram
I had a vision of the kids on the playground choosing the players for their team. Of course that is much easier since the goal is more defined, the game is short term and everyone has a sense of the other kid's capability.
It seems we pick our preferred candidates in much the same way. Though of course there are multiple conflicting goals, we should be concerned with the long term and we have very little past performance info.
I think "Popular" has to carry through into the polling box for this discussion. A politician's influence and authority is usually severely limited if they are not in office to vote or committees to discuss.
It's kind of complicated. I don't know of very many presidential candidates who are personally likable. Bill Clinton and George Bush, both father and son, maybe. There is an issue of connection with an audience. Rick Santorum connected very well. Barack Obama does too. Mitt Romney hardly ever does. But Mitt is still running strong. Popularity also has it's negative side. Much loved candidates also seem to be much hated candidates, and candidates who operate at a high level of emotional intensity have to contend with both. Obama is both loved and hated. Mitt Romney isn't loved, but he isn't hated much either.
--Hiram
I've long said two things about getting elected. The first is that people want a politician who can clearly articulate what his principles are and sticks by them. It is better for the public to disagree with you than to wonder where in the heck you stand. People respect the rare honest politician.
The second thing is that a successful candidate is one who can connect common sense to common knowledge. "Everybody knows" that Congress wastes money left and right, and everybody knows Obama (Washington DC in general) spends too much. So the person who stands up and says we have to cut spending-- the simple common sense solution-- can probably win an election.
J. Ewing
J,
Why would anyone who gets more value (ie benefits-cost) from big government vote against it? Like you, they are voting their wallet.
And if almost half of the citizens aren't making enough to pay Fed income tax, cutting spending and wealth redistribution may be a hard sell.
. The first is that people want a politician who can clearly articulate what his principles are and sticks by them
Bumper stickers work for campaigns, but they don't necessarily make for good policy. We saw that with the Bush administration. And one thing I am certain of, the ability to articulate principles and a determination to stick by them, are no good at all, if the principles themselves are harmful.
--Hiram
Why would anyone who gets more value (ie benefits-cost) from big government vote against it?
I really don't know, but they do. It's a mystery.
--Hiram
I guess it goes both way, there are some that pay more and get less that vote for bigger government and higher taxes.
Just as there are some that pay less and get more that vote for smaller government and lower taxes.
My guess is that the 80/20 rule applies here though... Most vote what helps out their wallet.
By the way, I am not saying this is bad or evil. It is pretty well aligned with our American culture.
However I think it makes it difficult to make and support good long term decisions.
I especially liked this Chuchill quote from the first link.
"Winston Churchill had it right, all the way back in 1947: “Democracy is the worst form of government … except for all the others.”"
about:
"My guess is that the 80/20 rule applies here though... Most vote what helps out their wallet."
as I interpret the results from 2004, the rule is more like 55/45.
CNN election results
I think the biggest factor in deciding elections really is a popularity contest, as in which candidate do the swing voters find more likable.
I think voters exercise a great deal more altruism at the ballot box than almost anywhere else in their lives. Yes, those who feel "entitled" and are living off the dole will vote their (actually, your) wallet, but they are also those who don't think they should have to work to get it, including getting out to vote. So long as a candidate doesn't point a finger at them and threaten their place in the hammock, they may not vote in great numbers.
I think there is something else now at work, too, in that more and more people are starting to realize that the gravy train WILL be derailed in the near future unless something changes. They don't see that all of this spending has helped them any-- it's gone to businesses like Solyndra and the big banks-- but it HAS taken money away from what might pay them benefits in future years. Social Security insolvency is now just 12 years away. (Remember when it was 30 years, about 5 years ago?)
Laurie is right, though. Campaign managers understand that somewhere between 10-20% of people actually vote based on thoughtful consideration of the issues. The rest vote either on party affiliation or a general sense of likability. Part of likability is saying the "right" things on the issues, of course, but saying them the right way is the more important, like cussing out your dog in dulcet tones makes his tail wag.
J. Ewing
Let's remind ourselves of what exactly is the gravy train. Health care, Social Security, and the military. Which of these do we want to throw off the gravy train? Which of them go away if we do? We are not a poor nation. We can afford car elevators in McMansions. We can afford iPods in iPads. Mitt Romney tells us we can afford not a smaller but a larger military. We can afford tax cuts. So how can it be that we can't afford to keep the promises we made to our elderly? The promises made to them by FDR and Ronald Reagan, the promises they had every right in the world to rely upon?
--
Who said anything about breaking promises already made? All I (and most people aghast at the outrageous spending and unsustainable debt/deficit) have said is that we need to STOP making promises that we can't possibly keep.
And don't compare health care, Social Security and the military all in the same breath. They are three entirely different things. The "common defense" is written into the constitution as a federal responsibility. If it can be done more cheaply, we should. Social Security is NOT a constitutional duty but promises were made and should be kept. HOWEVER, we should phase it out in favor of private accounts over the next 30 years. That will prevent the problem from getting worse, and we will have to find the money for those already retired somewhere else, but otherwise we have to break promises.
Finally, "health care" is not only not a Constitutional responsibility of government, it is NOT a proper function of government to oversee wealth transfers from one individual to another, for ANY purpose. Most of it should be phased out as quickly as possible. For example, Medicaid should be fixed in amount and block-granted back to the states as "premium support." Let the states figure out who is eligible and how best to deliver what is necessary with the (gradually reducing) federal subsidy. Medicare should be turned into a(n optional) premium support system, also, and gradually turned into ONLY such a system for future retirees. Cash welfare should abide by the old and hard limits of 5 years maximum. Other means-tested benefits should be handled entirely by the states, and I assume that some of them, at least, will be less generous when that money is more obvious to voters closer to home. Good! Living at the taxpayers' expense should be limited to only the most dire of cases and only until their situation can be relieved through a combination of public and personal effort. In other words, we will help you find a job.
We are at the point, as the original post suggests, where it is still possible to be politically "popular" by suggesting a (sensible, compassionate, gradual) end to handouts rather than increasing them-- there are still more VOTERS pulling the wagon than riding in it. But we can't wait until the wheels fall off.
J. Ewing
I believe that it is my self interest to vote for leaders that support policies that decrease inequality (even slightly) rather than increase it.
Inequality and Health
Also the economy does better and is more likely to provide jobs for my kids when middle and lower people have more $ to spend.
Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators
Sorry, the promises have already been made, the commitments are already in place. Something we don't quite keep track of in our politics is when decisions are made. We made the decisions about Social Security and health care in 1935, and in 1965, and in 1983. We can't back down on them now. And cynic that I am, I have no confidence that any attempt to break them now will stick. It's easy enough for someone who is 25 now, to say "I will look out for myself when I am aged and decrepit." but it's a lot harder to stick to that promise when the time for keeping it actually comes around.
I am frequently told we are a poor country, that we can't take care of our elderly, that we can't take care of our children. Yet we can afford McMansions as far as the eye can see. We can afford to fit them out with car elevators. Every time I visit my happy place, the Apple Computer store in Ridgedale, I find it packed, and incidentally utterly unable to keep up with it's demand.
When you ask me to believe that we are a poor country unable to maintain the obligations we have entered into, while at the same time cutting taxes year after year, you are asking me to believe what my lyin' eyes just do not see.
--Hiram
"Also the economy does better and is more likely to provide jobs for my kids when middle and lower people have more $ to spend."
My favorite really gross thing from the last election cycle was when Target executives got caught passing out shareholder dollars to Tom Emmer. What I thought then and think now was that they were clearly putting their own interests, their desire to pay less in personal income taxes, ahead of the shareholders, whose money they used, and who would be hurt by the diversion of revenues from Target's middle class customers to Target's high income executives. I expect Target to do the same thing this year, but the paper trail is going to get harder if not impossible to track.
--Hiram
hiram, are you happier that Target will devote considerably MORE tax dollars to defeating the marriage amendment? At least the Emmer donation could be considered a "wise use" of shareholder dollars, since taxes might have been lower under Emmer.
J. Ewing
As for 55/45,, maybe Prolife vs. Prochoice is more important than even money to folks...
Laurie, wow!
I can't imagine how that Hanauer guy got rich with his thinking so backwards. He's right that the rich have gotten richer, but he overlooks that the rich have also, especially since the Bush tax cuts, paid a higher and higher percentage of the total taxes! He also seems to think that taking money away from the investments of the rich (if they aren't spending it, they invested it) and giving it to government is the most effective way to increase middle and lower incomes. That's silly. When the rich buy or invest as they wish, and the middle class does the same, we all prosper much better than if some bureaucrat decides what it is you want and need. Just ask the central planners of Russia how many pairs of ugly size 8 women's boots should be made.
As for the "health effects" of inequality, I suggest that we run a similar chart of average citizen height, and see if we can't come to a similar conclusion-- the more income inequality, the shorter the average citizen. Even if I concede the graph has meaning, what is the means to producing a desirable change? If you simply take money from the rich and give to the poor you reduce the inequality, but you haven't increased the total wealth in the economy and you have probably decreased it, by removing the incentive from BOTH ends of the income spectrum. Having government be the intermediary is even worse, because of the natural inefficiencies in government processes.
If you want inequality reduced, I suggest that you give away part of your income to somebody with less, and leave the rest of us out of it. Of course, any of those rich folks who feel like doing likewise are free to do so, too, even when they say it is a "problem." Did you ever notice, the rich who feel bad about the poor don't do much themselves, they want everybody else's taxes raised so GOVERNMENT can "do something" (anything) about the problem? Hypocrites, I think.
J. Ewing
about:
"the rich have also, especially since the Bush tax cuts, paid a higher and higher percentage of the total taxes!"
that is simply not true.
Who Pays Taxes in America?
"are you happier that Target will devote considerably MORE tax dollars to defeating the marriage amendment?"
That's a business decision Target made necessary, in part, to repair the damage to their brand, they incurred when they inflicted a wound on themselves with their support of Tom Emmer. That's why their opposition to the gay rights amendment is public. We simply won't be able to tell, this election, how many shareholder dollars they are passing to anti gay politicians under the table.
--Hiram
that is simply not true.
Who Pays Taxes in America?
Laurie, the chart clearly shows that the top 1% pay 21% of the total taxes. If that isn't fair, it's because the top 1% should be paying 1% of the total taxes. Also, my statement was that the Bush tax cuts resulted in the "rich" paying a higher percentage of TOTAL taxes, not of their income. And when we talk about "tax cuts for the rich" we always talk the income tax, and forget that other taxes fall more heavily on the poor. The only fair system is (and barely that) is replacing all taxes with a flat tax (with a family exemption only, so that only "disposable income" is taxed) or a consumption tax with a similar exemption. Any and every attempt to make the total tax system "fair" only makes it less fair and more complex.
If I was trying to be a popular politician I would say we're going to Simplify and lower taxes for everybody and have the government spend less so you can spend more of your own money. And be prepared to deliver details.
J. Ewing
"under the table"??? How can any business do that? They're not a union, you know.
J. Ewing
Businesses already do that through the creation of PACs. Managers and executives are expected to personally contribute to campaign committees. But in 2010, the paper trail wasn't well enough concealed. That was really a failure of the people who organized these groups. My guess is that this time around, the political orientation of the groups supported will be far more difficult to identify.
--Hiram
Post a Comment